The new RIBA plan of works 2013 offers architects and design teams the opportunity to innovate with closer working relationships between consultants, specialist fabricators and contractors. The key moves which make it more intuitive to innovation are that Tender, contractor appointment and mobilisation (old parts G, H and J) are not prescribed in the work flow. To work with all types of procurement systems, BIM led or not, these times are integrated throughout the new stages. This means it is potentially easier to manage projects to involve specialists as early in the design process as possible.
The RIBA Plan of Work 2013 The stage matrix does not highlight any specific time to Tender. These actions are implicit and can be worked in to a variety of work stages. Stage 0, Strategic Definition, is key to establishing consultants and experts which might be needed for a project. It is at this point where specialists can be targeted, and innovation can be planned out.
More integrated working relationships between consultants and specialists should help to:
Focus design deliverables sooner,
Help iron out any design issues relating to fabrication and buildability sooner,
Establish specialist consultants, fabricators and contractors into design discussions at the earliest possible point. This procedural move is key to unlocking many more potential innovation types, and is one of the items noted in an earlier post on Marian Bowley.
Give clients cost and design certainty as early as possible. This should offer clients the incentive to innovate with greater assurance that risks can be designed out.
The RIBA Plan of Work 2013 offers flexibility to work with specialists (fabricators, consultants and contractors) at a very early stage in the design process. Introducing technology and expertise in to early project development is one important way to boost innovation.
To help reinforce more integrated working relationships with specialists in design, the RIBA has prepared a Design Responsibility Matrix which seeks to establish the consultants and specialists required on a project at the outset. This document can be found with the RIBA's Plan of Work Toolkit located on their new and freeRIBA Plan of Work 2013website for project management. Alex Tait at the RIBA's Practice Department told me its the place to set up your own Plan of Work for each project. It is a mayor shift from the 2007 Plan because of its flexibility. He added that the new Stage 3 (previous Stage D) is where much of the coordinated and integrated design effort can take place with industry based specialists. The benefit of this is greater cost certainty and a more developed design in preparation for Planning Approval. The website as a whole offers a great set of resources which should help make project running with the new Plan of Work a lot less daunting and make an invaluable contribution to any practice's QA system.
By comparison, the RIBA Plan of Work 2007 followed a structured route where close integration of consultants, specialists and contractors was not intrinsically promoted. With the traditional building route specialist fabricators and contractors were not appointed until after the proposals were 'fully designed' leading to a risk of last minute coordination issues once on site.
Bones is a giant cardboard Lego skeleton. He is a family project created over a few rainy weekends in preparation for Halloween.
What is the relevance to this blog, which (tries to) focus on design, materials and innovation? There are a number of reasons which I believe are worth noting:
Instructables:
Intrructables is a website which brings craft and hobby projects to a social media interface. Many of the projects are very clever, tinkering and hacking with technology which is becoming more and more available to everyone. Technology progressively lowers the bar for entry. This little project is simple to construct but still uses a specialised approach to achieve its goals. The Mega Lego Skeleton project by ZombieGorilla uses Blender to model with and UV unwrapping to transfer all the surfaces to cutting patterns.
The original instructions include A3 sheets which produce a cardboard skeleton about 3 feet high. We doubled the size of the templates, and the size of the skeleton. These sheets were for the chest section. In total there were approximately 150 steets.
It has been raining - a lot.
Blender:
Blender, I believe, is a resource which needs to be recognised and used more in Architecture. It is an open source and free to use software package which can hold up against heavy-weight modeling, rendering and animation packages such as 3D Studio. It is incredibly versatile and does not produce a default visual graphic. The fact that so many Architectural practices rely on SketchUp must be to the credit of Google's advertising.
Assembling the parts involved a lot of strips of masking tape.
UV mapping:
UV unwrapping the model to create cutting patterns means that the structure can be faithfully recreated from sheets of material, at any scale. The sections fit very accurately and neatly.
The relevance to architecture is that:
Complicated 3D geometries can be replicated in model form with this process and,
CAD and BIM models can produce cutting patterns to achieve complicated geometric building structures directly, where the finished product will be produced from sheet materials, such as zinc or other sheet metals. Sheet metals can have braised, welded or folded at junctions, as required and arranged with specialist fabricators.
It's another example of how 3D models can be exported directly to manufacturing processes.
Leg components before painting. Several types of cardboard was used but the best and most forgiving, I found, was the card used as packing material for boxes etc. Its a great resource to play with and too good just to go to recycling.
Double-curved geometries:
This project demonstrates how double-curved geometries are still difficult to create in the real world. This project uses 16 segments for each cylindrical section, which scale neatly to fit. Double curves in this instance are created from tapering sections of cylinders. Although CAD and modeling software likes to create complicated geometries, this project exposes the illusion that they are just planes and lines with filters and modifiers applied.
Achieving double curved geometries with building materials is a subject which I will post on shortly.
The main head section achieves a 'double curve geometry' with tapering sections, accurately set out by the UV unwrapping process.
Chest and spine sections added.
Gerry Anderson famously said that he created puppets for his iconic production Thunderbirds, because he couldn't afford actors at the time. You might say we've taken the same approach with staff for DesignBox. We'll put Bones on answering phones and chasing invoices and see how we get on.
BIM (building information modelling) is taking over the way we work as architects. It is an inevitable progression in the working methods of architects, engineers, designers, and the building industry, especially now the RIBA has revised its Job Book, and most government projects will require it. The advantages of BIM are well documented and regularly appear in the architectural press, but as with any innovation, there are potential disadvantages. It is worth taking a quick look at some of these short-falls and give a thought to how they might be turned in our favour.
Andrew Barraclough discusses the advantages of BIM in the RIBA-J October 2013
When BIM is discussed in relation to the improvements in service and product for the Client, I get the impression that these advantages equate more to the values of a QA system rather than an architect's instinctive interpretation of good practice, which is to achieve the best design possible. A QA system focuses on the efficient and proficient running of the project backed by the focused, forward thinking management of the practice which oversees it. By contrast, architects often consider their primary goal as achieving the most exquisite piece of design, using any process necessary to reach this target. (Some of the most fantastic buildings have emerged out of apparent chaos). To me this begs a number of questions:
On design, is BIM too structured and regimented? Does it allow enough freedom for designers to experiment with creativity? Is there a risk that the building products of the BIM process will be safe, predictable designs with safe, predictable detailing? If this is a possibility, could BIM slow down the the development of architectural ingenuity? Especially when considering the advantages BIM brings to programme, will designers have the chance to take stock and think about what they are producing as much as before. On a some projects I've seen carried out in BIM, teams of architects have been working to very quick work-stage deadlines, producing information to very exact deliverable requirements, not to mention wrestling with the learning curves of the BIM management system. Although design is a priority (and a passion) for architects, in these cases the BIM process did not appear to hold it with the same level of importance.
Time is an important resource for good design. The Renaissance Architect, Filatete wrote about the importance of the gestation period to achieve successful design. In the twenty-first century we have learnt to work speedily, with less time but with more resources, including paper for drawings (which was a luxury in the Renaissance), models, material samples, mockups, visualisations, as well as CAD models, but surely to reach the optimum design solution, the necessary dialogues need to be held with the Client, which often requires time.
Models thrown out by Lasdun during design for the National Theatre, London.
Looking at this you get the impression that the creative design process dictated programme, not visa-versa.
Would it therefore be advantageous for everyone involved with BIM projects if we drew on some other innovations entering the architectural profession and building industry, to help maximise the potential of BIM innovations, and minimise the draw-backs?
Combining the BIM model with the ability to 3D print is an obvious link. Streamlined information from the BIM model can be quickly transformed in to working models for design or Client reviews, and help to maintain a swift programme. The technology is evolving quickly and prices for the machinery falling and becoming more available.
On working relationships between consultants, there has been some discussion about where the lines of responsibility lie, if everyone is working on the same model. The ideal situation would result in a working method which promotes greater integration (not just coordination). With Revit being the prime BIM software package, it should be possible to use other Autodesk software, such as Inventor, to run analysis on the BIM model to optimise its design performance. The advantage would be that instead of architects and engineers working on their own areas of work and coordinating to eliminate clashes, the architecturally led areas could contribute to structural performance. Structural elements could contribute to the operation of the services etc. Traditionally, structural engineers don't consider the added effects of bracing and stiffness which might be offered from architectural items like wall panels for example, but with this approach, buildings might become leaner in their use of materials, potentially saving costs and material resources.
On working relationships with the building industry, it would be very advantageous to bring in specialist suppliers in to the design process and BIM process as early as possible. The benefit to the design team would be the added assurance that the proposals will work, will fit, are buildable and can be qualified with the backing of the actual organisations which will produce them. With BIM being such a prescriptive system, it might prove difficult to introduce new materials and details in to the process any other way. For example, it is easy to specify a wall as timber stud and plasterboard, but what if the design architect wanted it to be dichroic acrylic panels bonded on to a clear acrylic frame? As if you ever would, but one-off specialist fabrications like this, or exploring lots of "off the wall" design options might add headaches to the design team's tight schedule. Introducing specialist suppliers in to the process at moments like these could help relieve this pressure and add to the integrity of the BIM model. Also, as noted in the previous post, specialist components can add further to the integration of the design process especially where they can perform multiple roles, such as primary structure, enclosure, and carry services all in one.
The Insulshell panel system used at the Rogers (RSH+P) Homeshell project demonstrates that primary steelwork can be eliminated from design if timber wall, floor and roof panels are designed to take all the structural loads and bracing. This is an economy on the performance of the building with potential cost advantages, but it requires a closer integrated working relationship between architects, engineers and specialist manufacturers.
BIM might appear a daunting system to become involved in, but when the learning curve is over, combining it with other innovations going on in the building industry and world of design, could potentially push innovation in design further than ever before. Lets use it to our best advantage.
In the first half of the twentieth century, architects idolised the production line as a means of clinically and economically producing buildings. Arguably the most standardised building type is the house and the production line promised to bring us closer to the ideals of machines for living in, or homes as service equipment, not monuments. But the production line never radically changed the building industry. By comparison to the pace of development in other industrial sectors, it is surprising that the building industry has taken so long to evolve.
The traditional approach to building, which the simplified diagram below attempts to explain, shows a distinct separation of roles between the (coordinated) design team and the building contractor's team. The design team need to ensure that the contract information provided to the contractor is accurate, buildable and coordinated. Once on site, the main contractor is responsible for the delivery of the built project and often has the lion's share of control over the works, within the parameters of the contract.
Simple diagram which aims to illustrate the relation ship between designers and contractors on a traditional build.
For comparison with those below.
With all the technologies available to us on the twenty-first century, it is surprising that building is still such a messy process, relying on wet trades and estimated quantities of base materials brought to site which, by comparison to other manufacturing methods, can consume a lot of materials and produce a lot of waste.
Even with the huge demand for housing, most of it is produced using site based labour and traditional trades.
The UK saw it's chance to adopt production line technologies for the first time, after the Second World War, in the post-war rebuilding programme. Using the aircraft industry to support the building industry, surplus war planes were recycled for their aluminium and converted in to bungalows on a mass-produced scale. Working under factory conditions brought designers and fabricators to a closer working relationship. The factory environment also allowed greater control, use and re-use of materials, thereby limiting waste. The product was typically four building sections which could be fitted together by a site team, on a prepared site, in one day to make a house.
The production line promised to bring design and fabrication roles closer together. The factory environment allowed greater control and accuracy over the product. Material quantities could be more easily controlled, with the ability to reuse surplus materials and recycle waste.
The most successful product (by quantity) was bungalow B2 by the Aircraft Industries Research Organisation for Housing (AIROH). Over 54,000 units were produced by four aircraft manufacturers in the UK, including the Bristol Aeroplane Company in Weston-super-Mare.
Logistical restraints play a vital part of prefabricated construction. The bungalows were transported to site, by road in four sections as shown below for an exhibition at the Tate in 1945.
Four sections of the bungalow B2 arrive at the Tate in Pimlico, London.
Specific on-site plant for lifting and manoeuvring the prefabricated units was also essential, as was a site team experienced in handling and assembling the prefabricated units.
The sections were pushed in to place, and junctions welded up to make a watertight enclosure. The services were also connected to the main infrastructure through the base.
Making the connections and completing the assembly.
With aluminium in abundance, and many workers experiences in fabricating this material in the 1940's even the kitchen, including the doors, was made with aluminium.
This approach offered some significant advantages over standard construction methods. Site assembly time was quicker, with less site waste. Transportation to site was greatly reduced, with only a few parts to deliver, saving transportation fuel. This also meant that by necessity the buildings were lighter, using less material resources.
There were disadvantages. This approach lends itself to a standardised single product solution. Variation in the product is difficult to achieve and not cost effective. That's why cars are identified as particular models and makes, with variations generally restricted to colour, optional extras or whatever you might add in the way of stickers or furry dice etc. Another disadvantage is that factory based production systems often rely on a set range of components, prescribed by what is on offer within the factory. The material palate and selection of details can be limited. Also, one key disadvantage to this trial was that although the houses were produced quickly, they cost significantly more than their traditionally built alternative.
With these bungalows, there is also the thought that the aircraft industry did not capture the imagination of the public (or design professionals) with these aluminium homes in the same way as we idolised aircraft manufacture, the marvels of flight and how it was achieved with structures like the monocoque fuselage. The bungalows, although very adventurous in many ways, didn't seem to have the same progressive aesthetic. Perhaps too many building details were lifted from existing war time structures familiar to the manufacturers, which consisted of temporary buildings and military camps. With the details followed some of the aesthetics. It would be an interesting investigation to look in to how much the Architectural profession and building industry was involved in these production line experiments because following the Second World War, the RIBA was active in trying to return the building industry to more traditional materials and production methods. I suspect they were driven mainly by the aircraft industry.
These bungalows were also a product of central government control. At the time, the Ministry of Works wanted to see what could be achieved with factory production, new materials including metals and how they could be combined as composites. There was a surplus of people who had been working for the war effort, with factory skills needing employment after the war. There was also an active steer away from traditional site labour and traditional building materials such as brick and timber, which were in short supply. This is why most of the photos of post war bungalows show them sitting behind wire fences with concrete posts above concrete paving slabs. The environments look a bit austere by today's more demanding standards, but they offered a marked improvement in their day.
Today production line buildings largely restricted to producing Portakabins which we identify as a standard temporary building type with limited aesthetics, or modular buildings often for service and utility use.
The traditional site-based approach to building does have a key advantage over the production line, that each building product can be made different and individual, and it is this versatility and flexibility which the building industry works well with and relies on for the variation we have in the built environment. There are several advantages of the production line approach and prefabrication which we can draw on to make the site based approach more efficient, quicker and potentially more economical.
Using prefabricated specialist products with closer integration and coordination during design offers millimetre accurate components which can potentially be transported to site from different locations, with confidence that they will fit and perform as required. It also potentially means a closer, more integrated working relationship between design professionals.
More and more, prefabricated components have played an increasing role in the building industry. Even on the standard housing build shown above, items like window units and roof trusses will be prefabricated. The more which can be prefabricated, the less chance there is of un-necessary site waste, and the quicker the site programme. There is the potential to involve less wet trades on site, and for buildings to weigh less, using less material resources.
This process relies on the close involvement of specialist fabricators to work at its best. BIM and 3D CAD has given us the opportunity to share design information with specialist fabricators with the confidence that items produces will (or should) fit on site. It gives a huge range of choice for material and detail selection because specialists can be chosen to suit the project, supporting the building industry's requirement to produce individual buildings or sets of buildings with variations.
The Richard Rogers Homeshell project is a great example of this approach. It uses a set range of components which can have variations as required for each house type.
The system is very simple, which should help to make it economical as a competitor in the housing market. The key ingredient is the Insulshell panel. This provides the airtight external insulated envelope, primary structure and lateral stability to the house, with timber framed prefabricated panels. The design of the system allows complexed geometries to be managed.
The fabrication is kept simple, as is the and jointing and weather sealing. The external walls are clad with a rainscreen and the inside lined out with a plasterboard finish.
Looking up to the underside of the roof and it becomes apparent that there is no separate structure. The timber panels do all the work. They are the primary structure, lateral stability, thermal resistance, air tightness and set out the geometry of the building.
The inside reveals that there is no additional structure. The Insulpanels are doing all the work with a combination of timber assemblies. This greatly assists the speed of the build and should help to reduce costs, but it also means that during design the Architect, Structural Engineer and Specialist Fabricator need to work closely together on this one product. This is something that has been noted before in a previous post. It means a departure from the traditional way of working where each consultant works on their separate area of expertise and the Architect coordinates to check that everything will fit, with the proposals then going out to the market for pricing. Here structure, aesthetics, and environmental requirements (insulation and air tightness etc.) are all rolled in to one product. Speaking to Don Blacklock who heads up the Insulpanel division of SIG, he stressed the importance of involving specialist fabricators in to the design discussions as early as possible, to make the best use of the potential efficiencies and economies available (which in my experience is before the Structural Engineer can say 'cross bracing').
Internal walls are structural timber cassettes, performing several design roles.
Key to all prefabrication projects, as noted above with the aluminium bungalows, are:
Logistical restrictions and the size of components which can be carried to site,
The correct lifting plant and
Use of trained installation teams on site.
This time-lapse film of the Homeshell installation at the Royal Academy, Piccadilly, London, illustrates these assembly principles. (There are some distinct similarities to the installation of the B2 aluminium bungalow at the Tate, 68 years earlier).
Perhaps the biggest hurdles to this type of development taking off are:
Economics. The system (product and process) must have proven cost advantages over traditionally built houses. Products like Insulpanel must be cost effective compared to a cavity brick wall, which is one reason it looks so simple.
A shift in the structure of design teams: More integration over component design with the involvement of specialist suppliers as part of this process.
A shift in the way the building industry works: Managing specialist fabricators in relation to supply to site in relation to programme. Addressing logistical restrictions and specialist lifting plant requirements to replace lorry loads of materials and scaffolding.
Contractual responsibilities: Including clarification of design responsibilities which result from more integrated working relationships. Also there are issues over who would be responsible for sub-contractor appointments, if they are tied in to the design leaving the main contractor no choice but to adopt them.
Aesthetics: An alternative solution to traditional building needs to be accepted by the public as a clear preference to traditionally built homes, or the victorian terrace etc. The solution needs to be marketed so that it is not seen as an experiment, temporary or something different or quirky.
With increased demand for school places there is growing pressure to extend existing school buildings. Often solutions involve several subject areas sharing one class room, or standardised class room units in the playground. This might not be the most satisfactory solution. A standardised class room will not make the best working environment for every subject. Annexed buildings can feel isolated from the main school premises and play ground space is a very valuable resource, especially in inner-city schools. At Furzedown Primary School, DesignBox Architecture worked through these issues to create a purpose designed Art studio, fully integrated with the workings of the existing building, without loss to the playground facilities.
A problem of insufficient teaching space
Furzedown Primary School is a very friendly community school in Wandsworth, London SW17. It looks small despite it being a two-form school and it has been gradually expanding since the addition of a large extension in the 1990’s. As the school grew, space became tight and the original Art studio was unavoidably taken as a form-room. Initial discussions between the School and the Council for a new Art studio pointed towards a prefabricated building situated in the playground. This was not ideal because playground space is very valuable to the children and this solution would have left Art lessons disconnected and separate from the main school premises. In addition, a standard prefabricated classroom would not necessarily make the best space for teaching Art.
A Vision for the School
The school had higher aspirations, and with this challenge to find a new home for the Art department, efforts focused on how the existing school building might cleverly support a new addition. The existing school buildings are arranged around a central courtyard with the form-rooms opening out on to the perimeter playground areas, at ground level. Areas linking to or sitting over the existing building were investigated to see if they would work as a potential site. Head Teacher Ms. Monica Kitchlew-Wilson identified a flat-roofed area over the south-east wing of the school which became the home of the new Art department, called the Art Box.
The Art Box
Budgets were very tight, but the school had lots of enthusiasm and high ambitions to create something special, and something to be proud of. The emphasis of the design concentrated on the quality of space and light.
The roof lantern works to bring lots of diffused natural North-light in to the teaching space. It has black-out blinds so the class room can be darkened for the projector and white-board. The lighting was designed to give good light distribution across the space. Spot lights add to the lighting flexibility with their ability to illuminate work on walls or add contrast to artistic subjects.
As much wall space as possible is provided for pinning up work. This is helped by the use of under floor heating to eliminate wall mounted radiators. The corner windows also help to create large areas of wall display space without compromising quality of light. The additional height of the roof lantern helps to make the teaching space look more spacious and open.
The teaching space is much larger than previous rooms used for Art and it has all storage and washing facilities directly connected to the main studio space.
Building over the existing premises enabled the new Art Box to be fully integrated in to the life and operation of the school. The existing ground floor corridor links to the new development with a stairwell set in to a remodeled store room. An adjacent platform lift also allows wheelchair users to access the upper floor.
Because of the tight budgets, the external face of the new building has a simple render. We added the signage saying 'artbox' to identify the new addition to the school. It is a playful reference to the Bauhaus Dessau. Using the same font but lower case, it signifies a small building for small people (children) but with big ideas!
The construction of the Art Box
At the time of the Art Box construction, the school was celebrating its centenary. It was important to ensure that the Art Box would look neat, purposeful and make a confident addition to the school, without too much disruption to the existing premises.
The construction site was difficult to access. Deliveries could not be made with anything larger than a transit van. The only vehicle that could access the site was fork-lift, so the poor construction crew had to labour without a crane.
Although the build was programmed to make best use of the school holidays, some construction still had to take place during term time. To ensure disruption to the working school was kept to a minimum, as many building components as possible were prefabricated off-site.
External walls and roof were made from structural insulated panels (SIPs)
Internal walls were made as prefabricated timber cassettes
Windows were delivered as fully finished and glazed assemblies, including the glass-to-glass corner units
The use of prefabricated components reduced the number of site processes required to construct the building and the extent to which materials had to be cut on site. This greatly helped to reduce the level of disruption to the school.
Our Architectural Practice
The feedback from the teachers and children on the addition of the Art Box has been incredibly positive. The space is a real hit with everyone and the amount of Art work being produced is phenomenal. Encouraged by this enthusiasm, it has become a key aim of our design practice to specialise in similar types of projects: To 'add value' to school buildings and create fun and enjoyable working spaces for children and teachers. For small to medium sized school extensions and refurbishments, time and consideration needs to be given to ensure that proposals compliment the school and provide the best working environments possible. This can be difficult to achieve, especially with tight budgets but we feel it is an essential consideration for any school. We are currently working on new school projects, and look forward to our next challenges.
Reference:
In her letter to parents, Head Teacher Ms Monica Kitchlew-Wilson wrote: 'It was sensitively designed by Phil Wells, one of our parents, who spent a very long time really finding out what would work best for us. He has delivered a beautiful purpose built block that all of the children (and staff) enjoying using. Thanks to Phil, we are extremely grateful.'
I've been collecting references to new and innovative materials for a while and thought it might be useful to post a selection of them here. These references are selected from a wide range of industrial sectors and in one way or another have some reference to architecture and the built environment. Collectively, they all appear to fit in to a set of familiar categories, the same categories or disciplines we work to as designers (cost analysis aside): Aesthetics, Structural and Environmental design. This was a bit of a surprise to me because I thought there might be a more complexed structure, but it is revealing for a couple of reasons.
Hypothetical structure of material innovations as a venn diagram
First, it illustrates that most innovations are not isolated to one discipline. They sit in the zones between two or all three disciplines. This means that similar developments within the building industry would need to result from closely coordinated work between different designers and engineers. As noted before, a criticism of the way design consultants work in the building industry is that they are too isolated and coordination too often just means making sure everything fits together for site. From the examples below, there are many opportunities to work with exciting new materials but it would require the acceptance of closer working relationships in the building industry; rethinking the way design professionals coordinate through work.
Secondly, in the building industry many non-aesthetic innovations are hidden or made invisible. This starts to become apparent whenever a building is un-picked. For example, the steel frame (an innovation resulting from the requirements of new building types) is clad in traditional materials. There is something about the inherent traditional approach to the design of the built environment which results in many innovations in the building industry being hidden. In other industrial sectors, and in other areas of study, structural and environmental material innovations often have more presence, and why not? There is some really cool stuff going on.
Interior of the RIBA headquarters at Portland Place, London illustrates the point above very well.
Structural innovations of frame and large spams are hidden and dressed
with stone and other traditional materials.
To demonstrate, here is a selection of examples:
Aesthetic
These innovations play on our senses and involve developments in light transmission, colour, texture, sound and even taste. They tend to play with our perceptions of what we are familiar with and our 'value systems' of what we are comfortable with in response to change.
Structural
These innovations relate to how materials and objects hold their physical presence or how this can change or be controlled under specific circumstances.
Environmental, Structural & Aesthetic
Putting it all our heads together as designers and engineers can lead to greater possibilities in the future for material innovations in the building industry.
The promise of carbon fibre components which act as a structural monocoque,
aesthetic exterior, and electric fuel cell
The promise of buildings where the envelope works structurally, moderates light and the
environment within and forms the aesthetic exterior.
The Halley VI cladding. Highly insulated, airtight, weathertight, structural and aesthetic. One single component.
(Built for Antarctica but thinner than a standard cavity brick wall).
